Where succession planning across Hong Kong and the UAE stands now

For a principal with assets on both sides of the Gulf and a family spread across Hong Kong, the UAE and an offshore centre, the central succession question is not which will applies. It is which legal system claims the right to answer that question first – and what happens when two systems give different answers.

Succession planning across Hong Kong and the UAE requires a coordinated analysis of at least three legal systems: Hong Kong's common-law trust and succession regime, substantially reformed with effect from 1 December 2013; the UAE's civil and personal-status framework, which has its own rules on forced heirship and choice of law; and the offshore holding layer, typically a BVI or Cayman vehicle, that most families in this corridor already use. The interaction of these systems – not any single instrument in isolation – determines the real exposure.

This analysis sets out the current cross-border position, identifies where the risk sits now, and offers a comparative read on the two systems. It is written for principals and their advisers who have already formed a view on the commercial stakes and need a sharper legal picture.

What is commercially at stake – and why the current moment matters

The Hong Kong–UAE corridor carries a specific profile of wealth. A principal is typically a business founder or family-office principal whose operating assets sit in the Mainland or across the Gulf, whose holding layer is offshore, and whose family members are residents of two or more countries. The assets are cross-border by design. The succession documents, however, are often not.

That gap matters now for two reasons. First, the UAE has moved its personal-status rules in ways that affect how foreign-law choices are recognised within its courts. Second, Hong Kong's trust regime – already one of the most flexible in the common-law world following the 2013 Trustee Ordinance reform – offers tools that remain underused in this corridor.

What are the real exposures? A will drafted in Hong Kong by a UAE-resident principal may or may not be given effect to in the UAE courts for assets located there. A trust settled under Hong Kong law by a settlor with a Gulf domicile may face claims under the settlor's personal law if the structure is not properly insulated. An offshore holding entity may be transparent or opaque to a UAE court depending on the classification it applies to the beneficial interest.

The commercial stakes are, in our cross-border practice, often framed as a timing risk: the window between the first generational transfer and the moment when the family's residence map is restructured is precisely when the exposure crystallises. Advisers who wait for a triggering event – death, incapacity, a forced-heirship claim – are already late.

The governing framework: two systems, one corridor

The starting point is to identify the operative instrument in each jurisdiction, because the conflict-of-laws analysis runs between them.

In Hong Kong, the primary instruments are the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29) and the Wills Ordinance. The 2013 reform of the Trustee Ordinance abolished the rule against perpetuities and excessive accumulations for Hong Kong trusts. It also provides statutory protection for a settlor who reserves certain powers: the trust is not invalidated by that reservation. Critically, the 2013 reform strengthened the firewall (the statutory mechanism that limits the ability of a foreign court's forced-heirship rules to unwind a Hong Kong-law trust) against foreign forced-heirship claims.

Hong Kong has no forced-heirship regime. A testator may, in principle, leave assets as they choose, subject to family-provision legislation. This is the baseline against which the UAE position must be read.

In the UAE, the position is materially different. The UAE Personal Status Law applies to UAE nationals as a matter of personal law. For non-Muslim, non-national residents, the UAE amended its Personal Status Law in 2023 to allow non-Muslim expatriates to elect their home-country law for succession – but this election is not automatic and must be registered. For assets located in the UAE, the position of the relevant emirate and the classification of the asset (real property, shares, bank accounts, business interests) will affect which body of law the UAE courts apply.

The 2023 amendment is significant for this corridor. A Hong Kong-resident, non-Muslim principal with assets in Dubai may now have a route to elect Hong Kong law for those assets. The election process and its evidential requirements are a matter to verify on the current position before acting – the regime is recent and the practice of the courts in applying it is still developing. Parties should verify the current position before relying on this mechanism.

How does forced heirship interact across the two systems?

Forced heirship is the central structural tension in this corridor. Under Islamic inheritance rules – which apply to Muslim UAE nationals and, where personal-status law so dictates, to assets situated in the UAE belonging to a Muslim – a defined portion of the estate passes to prescribed heirs regardless of testamentary intent. The proportions are fixed by the relevant personal law. A will that attempts to override them is ineffective to that extent.

For a non-Muslim expatriate, the 2023 reform creates an election mechanism. For assets held through a UAE-situated company or through a UAE property title, the classification matters: a court may look through the structure and treat the underlying asset as subject to UAE succession law.

Hong Kong's firewall provision in the Trustee Ordinance addresses the mirror-image problem: a claim by a foreign heir asserting forced-heirship rights against a Hong Kong trust. The 2013 reform was designed to make Hong Kong trusts more resistant to such claims. In our cross-border practice, we see this provision as one of the strongest features of the Hong Kong regime for families with a Gulf nexus.

The practical tension arises when the principal is a UAE-resident non-national who holds UAE-situated real property in their own name, holds BVI or Cayman company shares through an offshore trust governed by Hong Kong law, and has family members in both jurisdictions. Each layer engages a different legal system. The forced-heirship question applies, potentially, at each layer – but with different answers depending on what the relevant court treats as the governing law of that layer.

Does the Hong Kong firewall protect the offshore trust layer against a UAE forced-heirship claim? In principle, yes – but the analysis depends on how the UAE court characterises the settlor's interest and whether the trust itself is recognised as a distinct legal entity in UAE law. UAE courts are not bound by the common-law trust concept in the same way as Hong Kong or offshore courts. The risk of a classification dispute is real.

The comparative read: where Hong Kong outperforms and where it does not

On trust flexibility, Hong Kong outperforms the UAE and most Gulf-region jurisdictions. The abolition of the perpetuity period, the reserved-powers protection, and the firewall make Hong Kong law an attractive governing law for the trust layer of a multi-jurisdictional family structure. A trust governed by Hong Kong law, settled by a non-UAE-domiciled settlor, holding assets outside the UAE, should – in principle – sit outside the reach of UAE forced-heirship rules.

On real property, the UAE has the advantage of clarity for assets within its own boundaries. An election under the 2023 amendment, properly registered, may allow a foreign-law succession to operate for the principal's UAE real property. But the election must be in place before death; it cannot be made by an estate.

On wills, Hong Kong allows a testator to make a will covering assets in any jurisdiction. The testator may specify different governing laws for different classes of asset. In our cross-border practice, we regularly advise on the preparation of parallel wills – one for Hong Kong and offshore assets, one for UAE-situated assets – where the interaction of the two systems makes a single document impractical. A single global will often creates more problems than it solves when UAE real property is in the picture.

On offshore holding structures, the BVI and Cayman holding layer is typically analysed under BVI or Cayman law for the purposes of the company's internal governance and share succession. But the economic interest in those shares may still be characterised as an asset of the deceased in the jurisdiction of domicile. A UAE court may, in principle, assert jurisdiction over BVI shares held by a UAE-domiciled principal. The mechanism for avoiding that outcome is to ensure those shares are held through the trust layer – not directly.

Where does Hong Kong not outperform? The Hong Kong trust firewall does not resolve the UAE real-property question. It does not operate to prevent a UAE court from applying UAE law to a UAE-situated asset. The firewall is a shield in the Hong Kong (or offshore) court; it does not bind a UAE court. Families who hold UAE real property in their own name, without a properly structured UAE-registered succession election or equivalent mechanism, remain exposed regardless of the quality of their offshore trust.

A cross-border micro-scenario: the Gulf founder

A family-office principal – a Gulf-based founder of a manufacturing group – came to our desk in late 2025 with a structure that had grown organically over two decades. The group's operating entities sat in the UAE and the Mainland; the holding layer was a BVI company owned personally; the principal's family members included a spouse in Dubai, two children resident in Hong Kong, and a sibling in Europe.

The immediate problem was not a family dispute. It was a governance review triggered by a bank's request for a succession plan as a condition of a facility renewal. The bank's concern: no trust structure, no parallel wills, no UAE-registered succession election. In the event of the principal's death, the BVI company's shares would form part of the UAE estate; the UAE court's approach to those shares was uncertain; the Mainland operating entities had their own succession complications.

The work involved mapping the forced-heirship exposure layer by layer – UAE real property, BVI shares, Mainland interests – and identifying which instruments, in which sequence, would address each layer. The Hong Kong trust was identified as the appropriate vehicle for the BVI holding layer, with the trust's governing law set to Hong Kong to engage the firewall protection. A UAE succession registration was prepared in parallel for the UAE-situated property. Wills were prepared in both jurisdictions covering the residuary positions.

The sequencing mattered: the trust had to be settled before the wills were executed, because the trust changed the ownership of the BVI shares, which in turn changed what the wills needed to address. A qualified outcome was reached within a single professional cycle.

Where is the risk concentrated now?

In our view, the risk in this corridor is concentrated at three points.

First, UAE real property held in the principal's own name, without a properly registered succession election under the 2023 amendment or an equivalent mechanism recognised by the relevant emirate's courts. This remains the most common single point of exposure we see. The 2023 amendment provides a route; it requires active steps to engage it.

Second, BVI or Cayman shares held directly by a UAE-domiciled principal, rather than through a Hong Kong-law trust. The firewall that the Hong Kong Trustee Ordinance provides is not available where the trust does not exist. A principal who holds offshore shares personally is not protected by a firewall they have not established.

Third, the absence of a UAE-registered will or election for the period between the principal becoming UAE-resident and the completion of a full restructuring. This transitional window is a live risk: the structure is in progress but the old position still applies. We regularly advise on interim measures – including the early registration of a UAE will covering the transitional period – specifically to close this gap.

The window-closing dynamic is genuine in this corridor. The 2023 UAE amendment to the Personal Status Law is still relatively new; the practice of the courts in applying the election mechanism to complex multi-asset estates is still developing. Early registration, rather than waiting for certainty, is the sound approach.

The sequence above describes the standard exposure profile. Your matter turns on the specific assets, the jurisdiction of domicile, the residence of each family member, and the order in which instruments are put in place – which is where the structure is won or lost.

For a structured assessment of your succession position across Hong Kong and the UAE, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

A second scenario: the Hong Kong family with Gulf exposure

A Hong Kong-based principal – the matriarch of a family holding assets across Hong Kong, the UAE, and a European jurisdiction – came to our desk with a different profile. The structure was partly in place: a Hong Kong trust existed, covering the Hong Kong and offshore assets. The problem was a Dubai apartment held personally, and a UAE bank account in the principal's name, both of which fell outside the trust.

The principal's personal law – as a non-Muslim, non-national resident of the UAE – was, on its face, the law of her home jurisdiction. But the election under the 2023 amendment had not been registered. The Dubai apartment was UAE-situated real property. Without the election, the default position of the UAE courts for that asset was uncertain.

The work was focused: prepare and register a UAE succession election specifying the home-jurisdiction law; prepare a UAE-compliant will covering the apartment and the bank account specifically; and review the Hong Kong trust's scope to confirm it did not inadvertently create a UAE nexus. The trust amendment was minor; the UAE registration was the substantive step.

This matter illustrates a recurring pattern: a well-structured Hong Kong or offshore holding layer does not, by itself, address UAE-situated assets held outside that layer. The two instruments must cover the full asset map.

What the "objection" actually misses

The most common objection we encounter in this corridor is that the principal's assets are "already in a trust" and that succession is therefore "sorted". This conflates the existence of a trust with the completeness of a succession plan. A trust is one instrument in a multi-instrument architecture. It covers what it covers – typically the assets transferred into it. It does not automatically cover assets left outside, real property held personally, or assets acquired after settlement.

The second objection is that a single global will is sufficient. In a single-jurisdiction estate, that may be correct. In a Hong Kong–UAE–offshore structure, a single global will often creates a conflict: the will may be admitted to probate in Hong Kong; the UAE court may not recognise it for UAE-situated assets without separate registration or probate proceedings; and the time and cost of multi-jurisdiction probate – without parallel wills or a registered election in place – can materially exceed the cost of proper prior planning.

The third objection is that the 2023 UAE amendment "solves the problem" for non-Muslim expatriates. It creates a route. It does not solve the problem automatically or permanently. The route requires registration, evidential compliance, and – as the courts' approach to the amendment develops – active monitoring. It is a significant improvement in the legal environment; it is not a substitute for professional advice.

Explore the broader context for this topic in our Private Wealth practice overview, which sets out the full range of services in this area. For related analysis on asset protection in cross-border structures, see our guide on asset protection for principals with United Kingdom exposure. For the Mainland China dimension of succession and estate planning, our analysis on wills and estate plans covering assets in Mainland China sets out the cross-border interface in detail.

If an earlier structure, will, or registration produced an uncertain or stalled result, a second read across the two systems can identify the gap and the routes still open.

To discuss how the Hong Kong and UAE succession frameworks apply to your cross-border position, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Related practices

• Private Wealth – succession, trust structuring and family-office advice across jurisdictions
• Holding Structures – offshore holding layer design and cross-border governance
• Tax Positions – residence, domicile and the tax interaction with succession

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

Related

• Private Wealth
• Asset Protection Principal United Kingdom Exposure Uk Guide
• Will Estate Plan Covering Assets Mainland China Mainland 3

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.